American-Spanish War, 1873

Hey Guys,

I'm sure something like this has been discussed before, but my search function isn't working so I wouldn't find any threads for it easily.

Anyway, WI hotter heads prevail and both the United States and Spain go to war over the Virginius Affair. How would the war go here? Could the Spanish navy defeat the American navy in this war, unlike two decades later? If so if there were to be any territorial cessions, what might we see being traded/ceded to the victor?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginius_Affair

I quite like the bit about a Spanish ironclad being anchored in New York at the time! Anyone know what it was - the Numancia?

I imagine the US would only go to war if they felt they had some way of taking it out (commandos raid analogue?) otherwise they risk having it bombard New York City...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginius_Affair

I quite like the bit about a Spanish ironclad being anchored in New York at the time! Anyone know what it was - the Numancia?

I imagine the US would only go to war if they felt they had some way of taking it out (commandos raid analogue?) otherwise they risk having it bombard New York City...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf:

The Spanish ironclad at New York was the Arapiles. I don't know what the Wiki link said, but I remember that the Americans "accidentally" sank a coal barge outside its berth to prevent it from leaving. A Virginius War is one of several "on hold" TLs of mine.

As for the OP, I think this quote from the New York Times in late 1873 is a good summary of the American chances:

A well-known shipbuilder furnishes the following statement: The American Navy, compared with that of Spain, shows that we will have thirty-four guns in all our iron-clad fleet when the new vessels now under contract shall be repaired, and twelve guns that will remain worthless, as Congress has made no appropriation to repair them; while Spain has now afloat 151 guns in iron-clads alone, and is building three of the largest class of iron-clad sea-ships, carrying the heaviest guns. When these are completed, she will have 300 guns, or nine times as many as we have, in iron-clads alone.
 
Grey Wolf:

The Spanish ironclad at New York was the Arapiles. I don't know what the Wiki link said, but I remember that the Americans "accidentally" sank a coal barge outside its berth to prevent it from leaving. A Virginius War is one of several "on hold" TLs of mine.

As for the OP, I think this quote from the New York Times in late 1873 is a good summary of the American chances:

Thanks!

So, if this war broke out the Arapiles would be toast, but could perhaps do some damage before it was?

Of course, a ledger of gun numbers etc doesn't take into account where the Spanish ships are going to be at the start of the war. Some presumably will be in Spain, and some probably at Manila. The former can get to Cuba before the US can take any potential advantage I expect

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Thanks!

So, if this war broke out the Arapiles would be toast, but could perhaps do some damage before it was?

Arapiles would probably be boarded and taken by storm in port the minute war was declared, I'd assume. I don't know about how much damage it could do, but I'm getting a (historically) amusing mental image of the New York docks turning into a warzone if the Spanish are alert, resulting in the local militia bringing up artillery pieces to take on the trapped ironclad. :p Realistically, though, it was in dry dock, so I don't see a seizure at gunpoint being resisted except with small arms fire.

Of course, a ledger of gun numbers etc doesn't take into account where the Spanish ships are going to be at the start of the war. Some presumably will be in Spain, and some probably at Manila. The former can get to Cuba before the US can take any potential advantage I expect

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

All of the other ironclads are in Spain at this point. The tricky part is that a rebellion at Spain's naval base in Valencia has just made large portions of the ironclad fleet ineffective due to the questionable loyalties of the crew, as well as the fact that at least one* has been blown up without her officers to run things.

That said, I determined that at least two ironclads at full strength, Vitoria (the lone loyalist ironclad) and Zaragosa (recaptured from the rebels in the fall of 1873, and given a loyalist crew), each by itself probably capable of smashing the American fleet at Key West, could be across the Atlantic by mid-January 1874. In a longer war, you could conceivably have every Spanish ironclad besides Arapiles in the Caribbean by the summer of 1874.

*The Tetuan. In my TL, war with America results in the cancellation of an anti-Carlist offensive in order to retake the ironclads at Valencia more quickly. This allows the seizure of the Tetuan before it blows up like it did in OTL, allowing it to make the crossing under Rear-Admiral Chicarro in early 1874, albeit in an undermanned state.

EDIT: Errr...switch the notes on Vitoria and Zaragosa. Zaragosa was the permanently-loyalist ship, etc.
 
Thanks a lot :) You know a lot and must have some great sources!

I didn't realise the Arapiles was in dry dock, though that answers my unasked question as to what it was doing at New York in the first place

Bets Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Thanks a lot :) You know a lot and must have some great sources!

I didn't realise the Arapiles was in dry dock, though that answers my unasked question as to what it was doing at New York in the first place

Bets Regards
Grey Wolf

Thank you! I've picked up most of it from 1873 articles in the New York Times which relate the progress of events, albeit with an American slant, as well as from a couple of books about the First Spanish Republic and the various shenanigans its mutinous ironclads undertook during that period.

As for specifics on Arapiles, it was getting its bottom cleaned before another stint as flagship of the Caribbean squadron, as there wasn't a drydock in Cuba large enough to handle her. IIRC, in OTL it had to stay a little longer: some stern armor plates which were dislodged when the end of the drydock caved in upon being "accidentally" smashed into by a coal barge needed to be reattached.
 
I mention one in "If Baseball Integrated Early," but never really say how the U.S. won its narrow victory. Research for the history analogue shows it to be hard, but I think it's doable *if*:

1. There are already "advisors" on the ground in Cuba. In other words, more Americans helping the Cuban revolutionaries. This could happen if, say, Southerners wanted it as a way to ship thousands of freed slaves.

2. the rebellion in Spain taking an ugly turn. I have it mentioned as starting in 1874 after things escalate and diplomacy fails, giving a few of those ironclads time to shoot each toher up.

3. U.S. purchase of the Dominican Republic happens. It almost did. This could then convince the U.S. to build more ironclads to protect their sudden Carribbean interests. Indeed, an earlier end to the Civil War might even convince the U.S. to do so, as a way to ensure no further French aggression in Mexico, while covertly sending troops to do that. (I suppose you could even some ex-Confederates going down to help pry Maximilian away - I have J.E.B. Stuart surviving and, having some more fight in him, going down to Mexico and lending quite a bit to the legends of Zorro in later years. Not sure how realistic it is, but it's possible enough that he would go down there for a whie after the Civil War, before returning home to Virginia, that the "rule of cool" applies.:D:cool:)
 
1. There are already "advisors" on the ground in Cuba. In other words, more Americans helping the Cuban revolutionaries. This could happen if, say, Southerners wanted it as a way to ship thousands of freed slaves.

Under what circumstances do you propose a groundswell of American opinion for removing voting citizens (this is the pre-Redeemer South) from the country?

2. the rebellion in Spain taking an ugly turn. I have it mentioned as starting in 1874 after things escalate and diplomacy fails, giving a few of those ironclads time to shoot each toher up.

None of "those ironclads" were capable of shooting each other up. The rebellion was wrapped up in January. The rebel ironclads were without officers, and surrendered or fled whenever they came into contact with government ships, or those of foreign powers No foreign power aided the rebels, because they were considered pirates.

3. U.S. purchase of the Dominican Republic happens. It almost did. This could then convince the U.S. to build more ironclads to protect their sudden Carribbean interests.

This is highly unlikely. Even if the Dominican Republic is purchased (which was not as likely as its prevalence in AH indicates), that hardly requires the relatively vast expenditure in ironclads that would be required for parity with Spain in the Caribbean. A person who demanded a fleet of battleships because an impoverished island had been purchased would be laughed off the floor of the Senate. The American battleline of the early 20th century was not ordered because of the annexation of Hawaii.

Indeed, an earlier end to the Civil War might even convince the U.S. to do so, as a way to ensure no further French aggression in Mexico, while covertly sending troops to do that. (I suppose you could even some ex-Confederates going down to help pry Maximilian away - I have J.E.B. Stuart surviving and, having some more fight in him, going down to Mexico and lending quite a bit to the legends of Zorro in later years. Not sure how realistic it is, but it's possible enough that he would go down there for a whie after the Civil War, before returning home to Virginia, that the "rule of cool" applies.:D:cool:)

Why, when no such thing was accomplished in OTL?
 
I believe that there was some consultation by either the Congress or the President with Admiral David Dixon Porter, head of the US Navy at the time, who basically advised everyone that the US Navy was no match for the Spanish Navy.
 
Could the US have bought ships?

I was also wondering how the Spanish not that long ago war against Peru and Chile was viewed in the US, and whether it gave them a weaker view of the Spanish navy?

Of course, US estimates as to Spanish strength rely on the Spanish actually living up to them to prove valid...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I believe that there was some consultation by either the Congress or the President with Admiral David Dixon Porter, head of the US Navy at the time, who basically advised everyone that the US Navy was no match for the Spanish Navy.

Indeed, and Secretary of Navy Robeson (perhaps the worst Secretary of the Navy in US history) told him to go ahead and collect the fleet in Key West anyway. After the crisis subsided, the American commander at Key West cruised over to Havana in his flagship and exchanged pleasantries with the Spanish admiral on Arapiles. A sailor onboard that ship said that he was very proud of the American flagship (his own ship), but wrote that even the American sailors realized it wouldn't stand for an hour against the Spanish ironclad.

Humorously, a look through newspaper articles of the time show a very Harry Harrison-like ignorance of naval warfare. They talk about how a Spanish battleship wouldn't last fifteen minutes against a monitor incessantly. :p
 
Could the US have bought ships?

I was also wondering how the Spanish not that long ago war against Peru and Chile was viewed in the US, and whether it gave them a weaker view of the Spanish navy?

Of course, US estimates as to Spanish strength rely on the Spanish actually living up to them to prove valid...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

The US certainly could have, but there weren't that may people selling warships at the time. The only powers with an excess of ironclads are Britain and France. The age of Armstrong and their Elswick cruisers, quite a few of them built from stock designs in anticipation of purchases by foreign nations is years in the future.

I'm going to guess that it was unlikely that the Spanish dispatched their ironclads to Latin America in their attempt to reconquer Peru.
 
Could the US have bought ships?

From whom? And who would man them? Certainly not in a quick war.

I was also wondering how the Spanish not that long ago war against Peru and Chile was viewed in the US, and whether it gave them a weaker view of the Spanish navy?

Very possibly. The Spanish were ineffective against Peru and Chile because warships don't beat decent shore batteries without overwhelming force.

Of course, US estimates as to Spanish strength rely on the Spanish actually living up to them to prove valid...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

See my quote above. The American sailors and their commanding officers were hardly sanguine about their possibilities against the Spanish battleships.
 
The US certainly could have, but there weren't that may people selling warships at the time. The only powers with an excess of ironclads are Britain and France. The age of Armstrong and their Elswick cruisers, quite a few of them built from stock designs in anticipation of purchases by foreign nations is years in the future.

I'm going to guess that it was unlikely that the Spanish dispatched their ironclads to Latin America in their attempt to reconquer Peru.

Assuming that the United States gets persuaded to purchase warships in late 1873, what are its options, assuming (in all likelihood!) that no nation is going to hand over brand-new, already-completed warships?

HMS Thunderer could get finished much earlier than it was in OTL, but assuming the British allow its purchase, the Americans would have to wait a year and pay an astronomical amount in order to obtain her, perhaps two or three times her actual cost. This seems really unlikely to me, though IMO it would erase Spain's advantage on its own.

The coast-defense ironclads Rupert and Hotspur seem more likely, and the Royal Navy's dissatisfaction with Hotspur in particular seems to mark it as a possibility. Again, the price would be really expensive, and it would only counter the equivalent of one, or, at most, two Spanish ships.

France seems a better bet, if France is indeed interested in aiding the United States against a fellow colonial power. The Provence-class ironclads are equivalent to the Spanish ships, but I doubt that more than one or two would be made available, as France's ironclad fleet was in a weak state, especially after the budget cuts following the Franco-Prussian War. Again, the price would be very high.

The issue with all of these purchases is that the "real" USN would be sunk off the Florida Keys before they could possibly arrive. With Spanish ironclads in New York Harbor, at least to blow up a few earthworks and show who holds command of the sea, if not to accomplish anything useful, who wants to stand in Congress and demand war at all costs over Cuba, requiring a huge expenditure in poor economic times?
 
I'm not really sure why French adventurism would cause them to get more anxious about building a navy - that's why I said it might. Frankly, if OP is looking for a reason for more warships, I'm just trying to figure it out.

I'll admit, though,t hat I naturally associated the annexation of Hawaii (and acquisition of the PHilippines) with the desire to build a bigger fleet. My thinking was, "Okay, we've got an island, we're starting to get colonies, we need a good navy to get from here to there."

I know the U.S. could never get the Philippines in 1873; but it amazes me just how poor their chances were to even get Cuba. The Spanish fall over the next 25 years must have really been something! (Then again, if I have time, maybe I should check out the TL where the U.S. loses OTL's Spanish-American War; perhaps an American victory wasn't as much a sure thing as I think even in 1898.)
 
Top